Get a video's transcript as plain readable text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it picks the active track unless a language is named, and it strips cue numbers and timestamps by default. It does not mention failure modes for missing tracks, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by track selection, return shape, and the format escape hatch. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself ('the words only, with cue numbers and timestamps stripped') and covers both optional parameters. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents format (text strips timings, vtt is raw WebVTT) and language (omit for active track). The description largely restates these, adding only the framing that vtt is for 'keeping timings' — marginal value over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a video's transcript) plus the output form (plain readable text). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_video and list_texttracks, and an agent can tell what it will receive without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real when-to-use guidance: the stripped text is 'what you want for summarizing or repurposing,' and it names the condition for the alternative format ('Ask for format vtt to keep the timings'). It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.